This has become such a big story that the BBC News app sent a BREAKING NEWS notification.

Anyway – it told me:

‘Cyclist accused of killing woman on London street cleared of manslaughter but guilty of “wanton and furious driving”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321

Discuss.

Seems a sensible outcome.

Damn it – I logged on just to post this update and be first, too slow for that too!

guilty of “wonton and furious driving’.

What a dumpling!

Surprised at the perjorative language on the Guardian breaking news – “Charlie..convicted of causing bodily harm after mowing down” the woman. Mowing down seems a bit harsh.

The correct verdict I think – if you ignore the legal tehnicalities as discussed above that a defence for the manslaughter charge ought to be a defence for the W&F charge! (I’ll have to go and remind myself why, can’t remember the details of that argument)

At least it feels about right to me – or at least not a terribly wrong verdict.

What a dumpling!

Damn, too slow. 😀

Let’s see what the sentencing comes to.

IIRC, still up to two years in jail.

Would he of been convicted of wanton and furious driving if it was just a normal day and no one stepped out in front of him?

/devils advocate

(tbh I don’t really understand what that charge means, I’ll google it now)

EDIT: Alright the name of the full charge is “Causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving” which makes more sense.

“Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years …”

probably the right verdict but is wanton and furious driving correct when he was riding not driving? (Yes, I know that’s what it says on BBC site)

Yes, because “driving” refers to driving a carriage rather than a car – it’s a charge which dates to before cars and bicycles were invented (but covers the use of those due to later clarifications of legal definitions). In the same way it is illegal to ride on the pavement due to an 1835 law prohibiting “driving” on a footway.

fair enough

MTB-Idle – Member

probably the right verdict but is wanton and furious driving correct when he was riding not driving?

Prosecutors should only prosecute this offence when it is not possible to prosecute for an offence under the RTA 1988, for example:

when the vehicle used was not a mechanically propelled vehicle (such as a bicycle or horse drawn vehicle);

So – I am right to assume the “Wanton verdict” was reached because he should of have time to emergency stop? And thereby choosing not to or to try to evade the deceased it was deemed “wanton”?

(rather than the lack of front brake being what was wanton)

Really comes down to how the Judge directed the Jury with regard to the charges with Wanton and Furious being they one where they could at least reach a majority? Reasonable outcome given the circumstances.

Up to 2 years in jail

“Judge Wendy Thomas warned that he faced a custodial sentence but added that it was not a certainty until she had heard mitigation at the sentencing hearing. She added: “I have not seen one iota of remorse from Mr Alliston at all at any stage.””

Looks like he’s facing prison

Discussion on that on page 11 of this thread: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/charged-with-manslaughter-riding-a-fixie/page/11

I think if the “wilful neglect” is the lack of brakes then the defence is the same as for manslaughter, so maybe they deemed the style of riding constituted “wilful misconduct”. Though in reality I suspect the finer points of law were ignored and it was a verdict the majority of the jury felt was right.

I’m sure his case wasn’t helped by his attitude – which I have to admit is one reason I’m not at all upset at him being found guilty despite a suspicion it wasn’t legally correct.

There’s definitely a message being sent there – he hasn’t exactly helped himself in this case (I still suspect he wouldn’t have found himself in court if he’d had a better attitude in the aftermath of the collision).

Mrs Briggs’ family said they plan to campaign for tougher cycling laws to protect pedestrians.

Even though the legal system has convicted the cyclist who killed their relative.

😕

There’s definitely a message being sent there – he hasn’t exactly helped himself in this case (I still suspect he wouldn’t have found himself in court if he’d had a better attitude in the aftermath of the collision).

Yep, he could either have offered sincere apologies, remorse, said the sun was in his eyes or the opposite and just buggered off.

Either way he’d get off (assuming in the latter case that he was never tracked down).

Seems to be what happens with drivers anyway.

Mrs Briggs’ family said they plan to campaign for tougher cycling laws to protect pedestrians.

Or they could campaign for compulsory helmets for pedestrians. Again, that’s what happens when a cyclist gets killed, they get told they should have been wearing a helmet.

The case has raised questions about safety and responsibility on the road.

🙄 – presumably the hundreds of peds and cyclist killed by motorists every year doesn’t raise such questions (because evil cyclists)?

I’m looking forwards to the lack of helmet being used as mitigation.

Should also get 5 years hard labour for being a remorseless douche.

Good analysis here…

https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-alliston-mis-trial.html

the Guardian breaking news – “Charlie..convicted of causing bodily harm after mowing down” the woman. Mowing down seems a bit harsh.

We’ll he did didn’t he, and has been convicted of just that. The poor woman died and his actions immediately afterwards when she was lying on the ground mortally injured, and subsequently on social media mark him as a complete tool.
So not harsh at all !!

aracer – Member

The case has raised questions about safety and responsibility on the road.

– presumably the hundreds of peds and cyclist killed by motorists every year doesn’t raise such questions (because evil cyclists)?

I’m looking forwards to the lack of helmet being used as mitigation. Was she killed through a clash of heads, bonce versus bonce, or from hitting her head on the ground? If it’s the former then his lack of a helmet would have been a critical factor, so maybe the judge might mention it.

So she steps into the flow of traffic, 30 yards from a pedestrian crossing, whilst preoccupied with her mobile phone and comes unstuck in the worst possible way. I see enough of these phone obsessed nitwits driving on the motorway to have any sympathy.

I’m referring to her lack of helmet – that would have helped her either way (given the impacts they’re designed to protect you from, there seems a very high chance she’d still be alive).

That Cycling Silk Blog link above is good and majors on the double standard applied to cyclists compared to drivers and the poor quality of defence the young man had. Maybe the defence brief has his eye on the appeal? (Tongue in cheek comment).

Either the jury has decided to to the equivalent of downgrading the offence from “death by dangerous” to “death by careless” (with the “wanton” charge being in their minds the equivalent of the latter) or perhaps they felt that the death was a fluke outcome and therefore based on the result of the likelyhood of injury rather than death.

It’ll be interesting to see what the sentence is. Normally I’d expect a non custodial sentence (and in fact still do) but he’s done himself no favours.

I understand the Briggs family being upset but what this has demonstrated is that the cycling laws are there (although perhaps not always enforced) already. Ok sorting out “death by dangerous cycling” and “death by careless cycling” laws might be cleared but it’s unlikely they’d be used more than once or twice a year anyway. Existing laws (either dangerous cycling or careless cycling) could even be used to crackdown on brakeless fixie riders without their being any need for an injury accident to have taken place. The Briggs family are also (perhaps understandably) ignoring the fact that the primary cause of the poor ladies death was choosing to cross the road when it wasn’t safe to do so – so perhaps would be better campaigning for jaywalking laws.

Once or twice a year? You need to check on the frequency of pedestrian deaths following collision with cyclists!

That Cycling Silk Blog link above is good and majors on the double standard applied to cyclists compared to drivers and the poor quality of defence the young man had. Maybe the defence brief has his eye on the appeal? (Tongue in cheek comment).

The article is pretty biased IMHO – his only point seems to be “cyclist good, driver bad” and that cyclists shouldn’t be prosecuted as they are normally victims.

Once or twice a year? You need to check on the frequency of pedestrian deaths following collision with cyclists!

I think the average is 0.5 per year but has been up to 3 in some recent years.

An interesting comment by Cycling UK regarding review of laws regarding the actions of road users – clearly tightening the law on cyclists is far from the highest priority (he says to the choir).

Verdict in for Charlie #Alliston case – guilty of "wanton and furious driving" but cleared of manslaughter. Cycling UK's reaction below. pic.twitter.com/kTIATyp2ST

— Cycling UK (@WeAreCyclingUK) August 23, 2017

You should re-read it – I’m not sure you understand the point he is making about double standards. Which quite clearly is something happening here.

Good response from C UK.

You should re-read it – I’m not sure you understand the point he is making about double standards. Which quite clearly is something happening here.

The reason I think it’s a piss poor article is that it ignores the point that the prosecution in this case was entirely reasonable, and that’s a completely separate issue from the common perception that killing someone with a car gets you a slap on the wrist and nothing else (which we already know isn’t entirely true from the sentencing info posted earlier in the thread).

An interesting comment by Cycling UK regarding review of laws regarding the actions of road users – clearly tightening the law on cyclists is far from the highest priority (he says to the choir).

https://twitter.com/WeAreCyclingUK/status/900369914627796992

The only think that this case proves in terms of missing laws is that maybe a jaywalking one could be useful. It pretty much proves that there are adequate (if archaic) rules in place for cycling especially given the infrequency of them being needed.

I wonder if we might see police in Shoreditch cracking down on brakeless fixie riders under the existing legislation though.

Good verdict I think. Guilty of being a bellend. I think he’s lucky to have been acquitted of manslaughter, that could have gone either way based on reports of the trial and discussion here.

His sentence will probably be harsher than it could have been because of his knobbish attitude. Serves him right.

I wonder if we might see police in Shoreditch cracking down on brakeless fixie riders under the existing legislation though.

Which wouldn’t be altogether a bad thing!

His sentence will probably be harsher than it could have been because of his knobbish attitude. Serves him right.

I feel that I should disagree with you there, but I really don’t.

I wonder if we might see police in Shoreditch cracking down on brakeless fixie riders under the existing legislation though.

should crack down on them in Glasgow and **** without lights.